VBI Private CP 2k11

Private CP

Private CP ...... 1 Private CP 1NC ...... 2 Private CP 1NC ...... 3 Privatized Space Now ...... 4 Privatized Space Cheaper/More Efficient ...... 5 Privatized Space Cheaper/Solves Econ ...... 6 Privatized Space Cheaper Solves Econ ...... 7 Solvency—Incentives ...... 8 Solvency—Incentives ...... 9 Solvency—Incentives ...... 10 Solvency—Incentives/Prizes ...... 11 Solvency—Prizes ...... 12 Solvency—Prizes ...... 13 Solvency—Prizes ...... 14 Solvency—Asteroid Mining ...... 15 Solvency—Asteroid Mining ...... 16 Solvency—Generic Space ...... 17 Solvency—Generic Space ...... 18 Solvency—Mars ...... 19 Solvency—Moon ...... 20 Solvency—Military Communications ...... 21 Solvency—NASA ...... 22 Solvency—Planetary Defense ...... 23 Solvency—SETI ...... 24 Solvency—Shuttle Gap ...... 25 Solvency—Space Tourism ...... 26 Solvency—Space Plane ...... 27 Solvency—Space Shuttle ...... 28 Solvency—Space Solar ...... 29 Solvency—Space Solar ...... 30 Solvency—Space Tourism ...... 31 Spending—Doesn’t Link to Spending ...... 32 Politics—Incentives/Prizes Unpopular ...... 33 Politics—Privatize Unpopular ...... 34 AT: No Laws/Definitions/Framework for Private Space ...... 35 AT: Legal Restrictions Prevent the CP ...... 36 AT: Government Key to Safety ...... 37 AT: Permutation ...... 38 AT: NASA Key to Future Development ...... 39 AT: Private Space Can’t Get Started ...... 40 AT: Prizes Don’t Matter ...... 41 Aff—Government Better ...... 42 Aff—NASA Good ...... 43 Aff—Conspiracy Theory Links ...... 44 Aff—Privatizationà Militarization ...... 45 Aff—Private Spaceà Accidents ...... 46 Aff—Permutation ...... 47 Aff—Privatization Fails ...... 48 Aff—Privatization Kills Heg ...... 49

Page 1 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Private CP 1NC

Text: The United States Federal Government Should Provide Prizes and Tax Incentives to Encourage Private Corporations to [Affirmative Plan Area].

Government Run Space Programs are Subject to Nonsensical Bureaucratic Mistakes and Political Pressures That Fail the Missions of the Program Robert Garmong, Ph.D, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “Privatize Space Exploration,” Intellectual Conservative, July 22nd, 2005 (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/07/22/privatize-space-exploration/)

There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors -- which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments -- which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them -- but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.

Page 2 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Private CP 1NC

NASA Programs Have Advanced in Spite of Themselves—The Decline of Public Space Programs Opens Space for the Counterplan—Allowing Future Opportunities to Be Conducted by Private Industry Will Intensify those Successes With More Economic Gains at Lower Cost The Undercurrent, “A Small Step for Private Space Flight,” September 29th, 2010 (http://www.the- undercurrent.com/blog/a-small-step-for-private-space-flight_

With NASA’s potentially diminished role in the space program, there now is a golden opportunity to bring the full powers of human ingenuity to the problem of space travel. As Robert Garmong wrote in 2004, it was government involvement that inhibited more vibrant development of the space program over the past few decades. "[S]pace exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their thinking and judgment. Yet by placing the space program under government funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of government whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA’s history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals." Consider the incredible advancements made by NASA in the past two decades despite the ever changing political waters it had to navigate. We’ve had amazing advances in communications, global positioning systems and defensive capabilities thanks to the space program. The future opportunities in space from solar energy harvesting to off-world settlement are almost literally limitless. Setting the space program free of bureaucratic mandates will vastly increase the amount intellectual energy devoted to using space to create and implement new technological advances. Just as the relative freedom of the advanced technology sectors in the past decades has led to an explosion of amazing new products and services at ever decreasing prices, so too can we expect increased freedom in the space program to bring us an increased ability to utilize the resources of space with costs constantly going down. Hopefully, we are now starting to see the beginnings of a private space industry that has the potential to develop and mature in the same way that American industries became the leading producers of advanced technologies in the world: entrepreneurial ventures on the free market. There is quite a long way to go until we have a genuinely private space exploration program, but this is a promising first step.

Page 3 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Privatized Space Now

Private Space Travel is Occuring Now—The Industry is Set For Continued Growth As Space Moves Away from Government Control Space.com, “Going Private: The Promise and Danger of Space Travel,” September 30th, 2004 (http://www.space.com/386-private-promise-danger-space-travel.html)

A flurry of space tourism milestones and announcements in recent days signals that human spaceflight is shifting from governments to the private sector, space experts say. After years of promises, the industry is suddenly blossoming. Yet as regular folks thunder into the unknown, risk will likely grow. Commercial zero-gravity jaunts became available for the first time this month. A successful manned space flight took place yesterday. And earlier this week, entrepreneurs announced a $50 million prize for the first private orbiting vessel, as well as public flights into space as early as 2007. "It's going to transform everything," George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society, said of private space tourism efforts. "This is an unbelievable bumper year for human spaceflight."

Page 4 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Privatized Space Cheaper/More Efficient

Private Space Exploration is More Efficient, Produces Massive Economic and Sustainability Benefits Fox News, “NASA Approves Partial Privatization of the Space Program,” May 11th, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519609,00.html#ixzz1NzwesGvt)

"We believe," he said, "that when we engage the engine of competition, these services will be provided in a more cost-effective fashion than when the government has to do it," Griffin said. In 2006, the first round of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contracts was won by SpaceX corporation of Hawthorne, Calif., which received a contract worth $278 million, and by Rocketplane Kistler of Oklahoma City, which was supposed to get $207 million. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX for short, founded by PayPal entrepreneur Elon Musk, was already hard at work on its Falcon series of rockets. It also had done preliminary design work on a multipurpose capsule called the Dragon, which could be adapted to carry either crew or cargo to the ISS on a Falcon 9. SpaceX was funded mostly by Musk's personal fortune, but also had a small number of contracts to launch satellites for the Defense Department and from overseas. Rocketplane Kistler, on the other hand, was an innovative but underfunded enterprise. It promised to build on an earlier RLV program that had failed to get off the ground after a promising start in the late 1990s. In October 2007, Rocketplane Kistler's NASA contact was terminated due to its failure to meet the agreed-upon financial milestones. The remaining $170 million from the Rocketplane Kistler disbursement was awarded to Orbital Sciences Corporation of Dulles, Va., for its Taurus 2 launcher and Cygnus capsule combination. Orbital, one of the few entrepreneurial space firms that have successfully gone from start-up to billion-dollar status, not only builds the Pegasus and Taurus launchers, but also has established a decent reputation building small-to- medium-sized commercial and scientific satellites and space probes. Most importantly, both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are well-funded and commercially viable, a crucial factor to NASA. If a private company shows it's ready to invest its own funds, that's a lot better than people who want to "help spend NASA's money," as Griffin once put it in a different context

Page 5 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Privatized Space Cheaper/Solves Econ

Investment in Privatzing Space Saves Money and Produces Massive Economic Benefits Sioux City Journal, “Space: Roles exist for both public, private sectors,” October 14th, 2009 (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_2ad01fe6-92fe-5406-a3cc-15c9719f45d7.html)

He makes a good point. On the one hand, this nation should not be simply a player, but in fact a leader in stretching the boundaries of space. On the other hand, we are painfully aware, like all Americans, of our massive federal budget deficit and the costs associated with space travel. Legitimately, the question can be asked: How much can we afford for space exploration? Like anything else, the exploration of space is an evolution. Today we stand at the brink of what could be not a period of decline, but simply a new and different chapter in that process, one in which the private sector will have a larger role. In our view, more commercial involvement in space travel not only is inevitable, but necessary for the continued strength of NASA we want to see. Obama, for example, proposes federal assistance for private companies to build spacecraft on which astronauts would fly and payloads would be carried to the space station, thus saving money for NASA. With his plan, he predicts 10,000 new private-sector jobs related to space transportation could be created within the next several years. Those words must be music to the ears of Apollo astronaut and moonwalker Buzz Aldrin. In his book, "Magnificent Desolation," Aldrin writes convincingly of the role our private sector can and should play in space. For example, he supports the concept of space tourism, which he calls a "multibillion-dollar industry" from which NASA could generate valuable additional funding. According to Aldrin, allowing wealthy guests to pay to ride in a space shuttle or spend the night at the space station could produce billions of dollars for NASA. "I believe space travel will one day become as common as airline travel is today," Aldrin writes in his book, continuing, "... real progress will come from private companies competing to provide the ultimate adventure ride, and NASA will receive the trickle-down benefits."

Page 6 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Privatized Space Cheaper Solves Econ

Private Space Funding Creates More Jobs Faster and Costs Less than Government Programs 80 Beats Space and Technology Blog at Discovery, “Obama’s NASA Budget: So Long, Moon Missions; Hello, Private Spaceflight,” February 1st, 2010 (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/01/obamas-nasa-budget-so- long-moon-missions-hello-private-spaceflight/)

In place of the Constellation program’s Ares rockets and Orion crew capsule, Obama’s plan calls for funneling money to private companies that are jockeying for NASA contracts. The Washington Post reports that the plan would funnel $6 billion to support private space companies developing a vehicle to ferry astronauts back and forth from the International Space Station. Companies expected to seek the new space taxi business include United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that launches rockets for theUnited States Air Force, and Space Exploration Technologies, a start-up company led by Elon Musk, who founded PayPal [ The New York Times]. The plan would also extend the life of the space station until 2020. Commercial Spaceflight Federation president Bretton Alexander was understandably giddy at the prospect of private companies taking center stage. “At a time when job creation is the top priority for our nation, a commercial crew programme will create more jobs per dollar because it leverages millions in private investment and taps the potential of systems that serve both government and private customers,” he said [BBC News].

Page 7 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Incentives

Money is One of the Great Motivators for Action in Space—Especially Now, Economic Incentives are Key to Private Space Exploration Discovery News, “MONEY: THE NEXT HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT INCENTIVE?” April 13th, 2011 (http://news.discovery.com/space/human-spaceflight-incentive-yuri-110413.html)

Two things motivate mankind to do great things in space: power and money. During the Cold War, the world's two superpowers were at loggerheads and one way to beat the opposition was to find the highest ground. This was all about power. Through incredible ingenuity and bravery, scientists and engineers built rockets to launch men into the ultimate "high ground": space. Granted, the rocket technology was stimulated by the want to hurl nuclear warheads to the other side of the planet, but to control LEO was to win the hearts and minds of entire nations. Today, although there has been much hype about the supposed "Space Race 2" between the US and China, there is little incentive to send humans beyond Earth orbit. Actually, if it wasn't for the International Space Station, there would be few human spaceflight programs. Although the motivation for strategic control for space has diminished, that's not to say space technology has remained stagnant. Satellite technology and robotics have become mankind's "eyes and ears" in space. Our robotic explorers are "low-risk" in that they can prevent humans coming into harm's way. Why send a man to Mars when an expendable robot can do it on the cheap? Job Losses, Canceled Missions Stymied by the global financial meltdown and political mismanagement, expensive manned space programs (even expensive robotic missions) are becoming difficult for governments to justify. Despite all the positive government spin on "streamlining" space agencies, the fact remains that the world's premier government-run space agency, NASA, is suffering. There is no replacement for the retiring shuttle. Missions are being postponed, or outright canceled. Highly skilled workers are facing unemployment; many will likely look for employment abroad. In Russia, the birthplace of the first man in space, the financial situation isn't much better. That said, the dependable Russian Soyuz space vehicle will soon be the only ride for NASA astronauts to the space station-- with a per seat round-trip ticket price of $55.8 million -- an uneasy situation where US politicians have accused policy makers of keeping Russian space workers in jobs while sacrificing thousands of jobs at home. Other nations and space agencies have human spaceflight desires, such as the European Space Agency, China, Japan, and India, but more time is needed to see if any mature and all suffer from the inevitable changing tides of political ideals. Incentivizing Space Exploration And yet, tonight is a night of celebration. Yuri's Night is in full swing and there are over 500 events being held around the planet. There appears to be a genuine global excitement about the exploration of space, but enthusiasm alone can't push us to the stars. So, as the Cold War is long gone, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a Space Race with China, what could possibly incentivize the exploration of space with robots or humans? If knowledge and curiosity were the only driving factors, we would have pushed well beyond LEO years ago. If power isn't in the driving seat, then perhaps the burgeoning private spaceflight industry will be able to turn a profit. Money -- not power -- could be the new motivation for manned spaceflight, but could it be enough to expand the reach of mankind? Will it go beyond space tourism and NASA-funded contracts to resupply the space station? Will orbital space hotels/private microgravity laboratories really "take off"? The commercial interests in space are far-ranging, but it's too early to tell if commercialized spaceflight is the answer to pushing us beyond LEO.

Page 8 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Incentives

Tax Incentives are Extremely Effective, Flexible and Easily Implemented tools to Encourage Private Space Innovation Eric A. Lund, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, “Government Incentives to the Commercial Space Launch Industry,” August 5th, 1999 (http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/1999/lund99.pdf)

A number of tax incentive options have been suggested: tax breaks for investors, tax breaks on launch services, and tax-free bonds. Mr. Andrew Beal, President and CEO of Beal Aerospace, suggested that the government only reward successful launches with tax breaks. This could promote increased reliability rather than a possibly unsafe rush to first launch. EFFECTIVENESS: Although tax incentives require the investment for initial vehicle launch to come from private sources, some types of tax incentives would make private investment more attractive (as is the intent of the ProSpace bill). Any form of tax incentive could lead to a net increase in federal revenue by encouraging industry activity and fostering market growth. EFFICIENCY: This option is efficient by not requiring any new bureaucracy. Industry bears the technical risks. Efficiency may be increased a year or so after implementation at some cost through analysis of how the tax incentives are affecting the commercial launch industry. EQUITY: Tax incentives are generally more equitable than loan guarantees by not involving Congress or federal agencies in the decision process as to which companies receive the loans. The benefactors of tax incentives depend upon the final language of the tax bill. FLEXIBILITY: Tax breaks rewarding only successful launches are less flexible than an industry-wide tax break on all products that go into space, for example. One compromise may be to encourage private investment through tax credits on stock purchases in “space stock”— stocks of space-related corporations. FEASIBILITY: Tax breaks are more politically feasible during a budget surplus. Tax incentives for small businesses might be more easily implemented than the same tax incentives or multi-billion dollar corporations. The opposition to any tax incentive is expected to be strong because subsidies are politically hot topic when combined with fears of corporate welfare.

Page 9 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Incentives

Federal Incentivization of Commercial Space Activities Produces Effective Long term Solutions to the Dynamics of Space Parabolic Arc, “FAA Wants to Ramp Up Commercial Space Office, Launch Incentive Program,” March 4th, 2011 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/04/faa-ramp-commercial-space-office-launch-incentives-program/)

The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) would get an $11.23 million boost under the President’s proposed FY 2012 budget to enable the agency to oversee the emerging commercial launch market. The budget request also includes a $5 million request for a new Low-Cost Access to Space Incentive program and $1.3 million “to begin development and implementation of safety requirements for commercial human spaceflight.” According to FAA budget documents: “The request of $26.63 million and 103 FTE allows AST to ensure protection of public, property, and the national security and foreign policy interest of the United States during commercial space launch or entry activities and to encourage, facilitate and promote U.S. commercial space transportation. “The request includes base funding of $15.4 million plus programmatic increases of $11.23 million and 32 FTE to develop and implement additional safety processes and requirements specifically for commercial human spaceflight and space traffic management as well as incentivize advancements in low-cost access to space. “Key outputs of the request include a projected 6 license and permit applications, 40 launch or reentry operations inspections, 8 launch site inspections, 5 environmental assessments, plus new rulemaking products and the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation.” The $5 million prize competition would “establish a program for incentivizing advancements in space transportation by non-government organizations. This Low-Cost Access to Space Incentive program would challenge industry to develop and demonstrate technologies that meet specific criteria defined in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.” The FAA is establishing a new Commercial Spaceflight Technical Center at the Kennedy Space Center. “The Technical Center will provide safety and technical support for future commercial space launch activities and support the continued development of safety processes, standards, and regulations for commercial spaceflight. Our FY 2012 request allows us to hire 50 personnel (25 FTE) for the Technical Center in FY 2012 with the remaining 25 FTE annualized in FY 2013.”

Page 10 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Incentives/Prizes

Incentives and Prizes are Crucial to the Future of the Space Program Mark R. Whittington, Space Author, “Newt Gingrich Prefers Space Prizes Over NASA Projects to Continue Exploration,” Yahoo News, May 12th, 2011 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110512/pl_ac/8463287_newt_gingrich_prefers_space_prizes_over_nasa_projects_to_ continue_exploration)

"I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration." Prizes have been used to advance space technology already in the 21st century. The privately funded Ansari X Prize led to the first privately funded space flights in 2004. Google is running a Lunar X Prize that would pay cash to the first private group to land a robot probe on the surface of the Moon. NASA itself has run a series of prizes under the Centennial Challenge Program. Gingrich has taken the idea of space prizes to the ultimate conclusion by proposing a $20 billion prize for the first group to land a person on Mars and return him safely to Earth, reports the Cato Institute. Later, he added the idea of a lunar base prize for $5 billion. Under the Gingrich vision for space, NASA would be relegated to technology development and little else. Prizes and tax incentives would drive space exploration and, eventually, the settlement of humans from Earth on other worlds. Gingrich has also publicly come out in favor of President Obama's plan to foster commercial space through government subsidies.

Page 11 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Prizes

Providing Prizes Encourages Big Ticket Private Investment and Saves Government Money for Research Gordon Anderson, PhD, Editor of International Journal on World Peace, “Rethinking Economic Incentives, “ Januyary 27th, 2011 (http://blog.ganderson.us/2011/01/rethinking-economic-incentives/)

One way a government can motivate research without causing economic dependency is to offer a big prize for a winner. Most recent on the minds of many Americans is the Ansari X-prize which announced a 10 million dollar prize for the first reusable plane to fly into space and return twice within two weeks. The $10 million prize was awarded to SpaceShipOne in October 2004. It was designed by Burt Rutan and financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. The team invested about $100 million. The space shuttle, a much larger enterprise than SpaceShipOne, cost about $150 billion to develop and about $60 million for each flight after the shuttles were built. If a prize is awarded after a solution is found, then government bureaucracies do not restrict the inventiveness that naturally follows research grant awards. No taxpayer money is spent for for bureaucratic overhead or for research that doesn’t pan out. Money is only spent for a result. For a large enough prize, venture capital will be raised privately to following the ideas of inventors, with hopes that investors will each get a share of the prize.

Page 12 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Prizes

Government Space Prizes are Crucial to Enabling the Industry and Getting Big Players On- Board—Empirically They Produce Significant Private Investment Space News, “FAA Seeking 2012 Funding For New Space Launch Prize,” March 4th, 2011 (http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/110304-faa-seeks-funding-for-new-space-prize.html)

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requesting funding in the 2012 budget to offer a $5 million prize to encourage development projects aimed at providing low-cost space transportation. “I’m a big proponent of the value of prizes to stimulate innovation,” George Nield, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation, said Feb. 28 during a speech at the Next-Generation Suborbital Research Conference at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. “We plan to work with both NASA and the Department of Defense to discuss how best to implement this program.” Nield offered no further details on the prize but told conference participants to “stay tuned.” FAA officials have mentioned the idea of this type of space prize in the past, according to space industry officials who said it is likely to be offered to the first company or organization that can launch a small payload weighing 1 to 5 kilograms into low Earth orbit. The technology might include development of an upper stage that could be launched from one or more of the reusable suborbital vehicles being developed by U.S. companies, said James Muncy, a longtime commercial space advocate and president of PoliSpace, an independent consulting firm in Alexandria, Va. The FAA announcement drew praise from suborbital industry executives. William Pomerantz, vice president for special projects at Virgin Galactic, said company officials were excited to hear that the FAA prize might become a reality. “We at Virgin Galactic know that low-cost access to space is incredibly important, both for government and private customers,” Pomerantz said in a March 3 e-mail. “We also know firsthand that prizes can have an enormous and highly leveraged impact.” New Mexico-based Virgin Galactic is conducting flight tests of a suborbital vehicle based on the design of SpaceShipOne, the experimental plane designed by Burt Rutan that won the $10 million Ansari X Prize in 2004. Nicole Jordan, the X Prize Foundation’s team liaison for space prizes, also was enthusiastic. “Having the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation administer a prize for low-cost access to space is a great idea,” she said. “At the end of the day, it is the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation that regulates the licenses and permits required for launches, so it makes sense for them to be part of this initiative.” Last year NASA announced plans to award $2 million to the first company or organization to place a small satellite into Earth orbit, twice in one week. Space agency officials are seeking an organization to administer that competition. “We have been coordinating with FAA on our plans,” said NASA spokesman David Steitz. “We look forward to coordinating with FAA on their initiative, should they receive an appropriation.” FAA budget documents submitted to Congress in February includes $5 million “to establish a program for incentivizing advancements in space transportation by non-governmental organizations.” The Low Cost Access to Space incentive “would provide a $5 million award designed to jump-start the creation of an entirely new market segment, with immediate benefits to private industry, NASA, the Department of Defense, and academia,” according to the FAA documents. To define the competition’s scope and criteria, FAA will consult with groups inside and outside the federal government, the documents add.

Page 13 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Prizes

Prizes Will Boost the Private Space Industry Alive The Space Review, “Will government-sponsored space prizes fly?” November 15th, 2004 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/270/1)

The major news services haven’t picked up the story yet, but Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has already thrown down the gauntlet for the next great space contest: a $100-million government-sponsored space prize. On October 8, Rohrabacher submitted the “Space and Aeronautics Prize Act” (HR 5336) to the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation calls for the formation of a “Space and Aeronautics Prize” valued at up to $100 million. To claim the prize, a private group must fly a three-person spaceship of their own design to an altitude of 400 kilometers, complete three revolutions around Earth orbit, and return safely. The success of the Paul Allen/Burt Rutan team in flying a privately-funded spaceship just beyond the atmosphere, thus clinching the $10 million Ansari X Prize, brought a surge of new respect for the concept of space exploration prizes. Soon after completion of the X Prize competition, a billionaire named Robert Bigelow announced a $50-million privately-funded “America’s Space Prize” for the first group to fly a private ship to Earth orbit twice within two months. Now, Rep. Rohrabacher is upping the ante with an even more ambitious government-funded competition. The Space and Aeronautics Prize Act proposes much more than a $100 million contest, however. The Act mandates formation of a National Endowment for Space and Aeronautics, tasked with the following objectives: Promoting the value of space development to the general public; Awarding cash prizes for private space development, in conjunction with, or independent of, NASA; Creating standards for “tasteful advertising of commercial products and services” in conjunction with private space efforts or NASA’s efforts; and Encouraging private gifts of real and personal property to support the efforts of private space developers and/or NASA. Congressman Rohrabacher seems confident this legislation is perfectly timed to give a significant boost to the fledgling private space industry. In his speech announcing the bill before the House of Representatives, Rohrabacher said, “I am convinced a new generation of space entrepreneurs is ready to make their mark in contributing to low Earth orbit development, as well as returning to the Moon.”

Page 14 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Asteroid Mining

The Money to Be Made Off Asteroid Mining Will Push Private Investment to Truly Privatize the Exploration of Space Wired UK, “Making space exploration pay with asteroid mining,” July 14th, 2010 (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/15/asteroid-mining)

Platinum is the most famously expensive of these metals - it's generally held up in the popular imagination as the one thing that's even more valuable than gold - but the rest of its group is equally rare and valuable. These metals - platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, and iridium - are super stable, nearly impervious to chemical attack, and deal well with high temperatures. These qualities make them perfect for use in electronics, but it takes thousands of dollars just to buy a few grams of the stuff. A big reason they're so rare is that they don't naturally occur on Earth, as they almost exclusively come from sites of asteroid impact. Of course, that opens up a rather interesting possibility - how much of these metals are contained in the asteroids that haven't hit Earth? Surveys of asteroids close to Earth reveal even moderate-sized ones - about 1,500 feet across - have billions of pounds of these metals, far more than we've mined in all of human history. A single asteroid could give us all the platinum group metals we could possibly need for centuries. So how do we get the stuff? The basic technology is either already available or readily conceivable, and steroid mining has become a serious topic of discussion. Indeed, it could have far-reaching impacts for space exploration as a whole. The quest for super-cheap electronics and mining-based fortunes could spur a rush of private explorers into space in much the same way the lure of gold drove Americans westward in 1849. As crass as it might sound, the chance at some serious profit might be what finally pushes humanity into space once and for all.

Page 15 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Asteroid Mining

Private Money Can Solve Asteroid Mining—Similar Ventures are Empirical Proof Shane D. Ross, Control and Dynamical Systems at CalTech, “Near-Earth Asteroid Mining,” Space Industry Report, December 14th, 2001 (http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:Bl- DRZ2ZlKYJ:scholar.google.com/+asteroid+mining&hl=en&as_sdt=0,24)

Space mining could entail capitalization of a $100 billion or more (Kargel [1996]). Historically, private ventures for large and risky engineering projects have been capitalized at comparable levels: $20 billion was spent on the Alaska Pipeline, and an estimated $55 billion will be spent for Indonesian oil and gas exploration.

Page 16 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Generic Space

Private Space Industry Will Only Expand—A Healthy Space Industry Depends on the Type of Innovation That Can Only Come From Corporate Competition—Incentives and Prizes are Crucial to Solve Space.com, “Going Private: The Promise and Danger of Space Travel,” September 30th, 2004 (http://www.space.com/386-private-promise-danger-space-travel.html)

It has been three years since Dennis Tito paid several million dollars for a trip to the International Space Station. Since then, the idea of space tourism seemed to get a bit stale. Little else happened. Suddenly the industry has been galvanized by the X Prize flight and four significant announcements this month: Zero gravity flights - X Prize Foundation president Peter Diamandis and his Zero Gravity Corp. now offer weightlessness to the public in high-altitude roller-coaster rides aboard a modified airplane. Ticket price: $3,000. Space tourism - British entrepreneur Richard Branson will launch Virgin Galactic, relying on licensed SpaceShipOne technology, with plans to send 3,000 people to space by 2009. Ticket price: $208,000. America's Space Prize - Nevada millionaire Robert Bigelow will develop a $50 million prize for the first orbital passenger vehicle. Dream Chaser - NASA researchers will collaborate with the firm SpaceDev to develop new hybrid rocket technologies, which SpaceDev hopes will propel a reusable, crewed spacecraft dubbed Dream Chaser. The X Prize has helped turned the fantasy of space travel into a near reality. But as the $10 million purse is on the verge of being awarded, parallel dreams are also about to be realized. "This is the pinnacle result of efforts from a lot of people, and it's not just about the X Prize," said Rick Tumlinson, founder of the Space Frontier Foundation. "There is an entire industry out there...a new space industry that has branched off and built on its past." Starting with satellite construction and launches, private space industry has gradually reached the point where it can catapult private citizens into space. Multiple ways to access the black void and a robust commercial space infrastructure will help secure a human foothold out there, Tumlinson toldSPACE.com. NASA shifting gears Meanwhile, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and a changing culture at NASA are dramatically altering the playing field. Consider that the only two manned space flights planned in the Americas for the remainder of this year are by private firms: SpaceShipOne's second attempt and a Canadian effort that is currently on hold. With its shuttle fleet grounded until at least March of 2005, NASA's next crew of astronauts must rely on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft to get off the planet. The shuttle problem illustrates why many think a different approach is needed to sustain a healthy spaceflight industry. "You do not want a single point of failure," Tumlinson said. "If it's all crammed into one giant government vehicle, then we're doomed from the start and it will fail." McCurdy said NASA has already begun revamping its relationship with the private space industry. In addition to the NASA Ames-SpaceDev partnership, the agency has had a standing relationship with Florida's United Space Alliance (USA) to service and prepare its space shuttle fleet for each mission. The agency also plans to offer its own cash prizes for space accomplishments, another sign the agency is learning from private industry, McCurdy said. He added that such prizes, like insurance incentives, are just one way the government can support new industries.

Page 17 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Generic Space

NASA Privatized Space Program Revitalizes a Stalled Space Program and Solves Fox News, “NASA Approves Partial Privatization of the Space Program,” May 11th, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519609,00.html#ixzz1NzwesGvt)

When the Justice Department or the Centers for Disease Control want to send employees somewhere, they don't specify the aircraft types, let alone design the airframes, engines and avionics. They just buy plane tickets. Even the military finds it cheaper to use civilian aircraft for certain missions. So why should space transportation be any different? NASA's beginning to agree. For the first time, after nearly a half century of building its own rockets and orbiters, it has approved the outsourcing of some of the equipment that enables its manned space missions to private contractors. Last week, acting NASA Administrator Chris Scolese told a congressional subcommittee that the agency plans to give $150 million in stimulus-package money to private companies that design, build and service their own rockets and crew capsules — spacecraft that could put astronauts in orbit while NASA finishes building the space shuttle's replacements. On Thursday, the White House ordered a top-to-bottom review of the entire manned space program, one that will be led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, long considered a friend of private space ventures. Both developments show that the once-reluctant space agency and the Obama administration are ready to support commercial human spaceflight. It's a dramatic change, one that could reduce America's dependency on Russia for the next half-decade after the space shuttle program ends, and one that could kick-start a space program that some see as having stalled for 40 years. "Our government space program has become over-burdened with too many objectives, and not enough cash," says William Watson, executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation, a Houston-based group promoting commercial space activities. Watson said that allowing private companies to handle routine orbital duties could free up NASA to focus on returning to the moon and going to Mars.

Page 18 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Mars

Private Industry Can Fund and Organize Missions to and Colonization on Mars—NASA Already Interested in Engaging Them PopSci, “Private Space Industry Could Pay For Military Communications and Commercialized Mars Missions,” February 11th, 2011 (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-02/privatized-space-could-encompass-military- communications-and-future-mars-missions)

Meanwhile, NASA scientists are proposing corporate financing for a human mission to Mars, rather than relying on government support. Private firms could raise $160 billion for the trip and a Mars colony, according to Joel Levine, a senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. Levine makes the case in the book “The Human Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet,” which he co-edited with Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Companies could sell merchandise and broadcast rights to pay for the expedition, which could create 500,000 new jobs over 10 years, Levine argues. There’s certainly precedent for this — Google is sponsoring the $30 million Lunar X Prize, an effort to launch a robot to the moon by the end of 2015 and drive it one-third of a mile. And way back in 1999, Pizza Hut paid $1 million to sponsor the launch of a proton rocket that delivered key components of the then-tiny International Space Station. Still, those were paltry sums compared to a hugely expensive Mars trip. Cost and safety concerns could be major roadblocks for the private sector. But commercialization is very much in NASA’s future, even if the space agency doesn’t privatize the space shuttles. The space agency’s administrator, former astronaut Charles Bolden, said at an industry conference this week that NASA can’t survive without strong partnerships with private space companies.

Page 19 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Moon

Privatized Space Flight Can Produce More Effective Lunar Missions, Bringing More Development and Exploration than Just the Self-Justifying Function of NASA Christian Science Monitor, “Beyond NASA: The push to privatize spaceflight,” July 21st, 2005 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p14s01-stss.html)

The goal: to loft people and cargo at one-tenth the current cost. Building reusable rockets is only the first step. Industry sources say NASA, too, will have to buy services and hardware - at lower cost - from a broader cast of aerospace characters than the traditional players. And while taking the lead in high-risk human exploration of space, the government also needs to build an infrastructure in orbit - such as the space station - from which private companies could launch missions and conduct research. "This is an optimistic vision," acknowledges George Whitesides, executive director of the National Space Society in Washington, D.C. "But when you look at manned spaceflight at a broader level beyond the president's space- exploration vision, that's when it really gets exciting." Even the president's directive to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 could help privatize spaceflight. "We want to go about space exploration in a more sustainable way" than the Apollo program did, says Brant Sponberg, who heads NASA's awards program. "We want to bring along other sectors of America with us; this shouldn't be a NASA-only activity. My ultimate hope is that when we're sending robotic landers to the moon early next decade, there might be some robotic landers that don't have the NASA insignia on them." Slowly, that scenario is beginning to unfold.

Page 20 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Military Communications

Private Companies Can Host Military Communications Infrastructure PopSci, “Private Space Industry Could Pay For Military Communications and Commercialized Mars Missions,” February 11th, 2011 (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-02/privatized-space-could-encompass-military- communications-and-future-mars-missions)

First, the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center signaled that communications satellites could increasingly have extra bandwidth set aside for military use, following a 6-month study by four aerospace firms. Boeing, Intelsat, Space Systems/Loral and Orbital Sciences were awarded $3.7 million to study modifying commercial satellite capabilities for military purposes, including setting aside bandwidth in military frequencies. The firms will examine how they can meet military requirements with minimal modifications to their commercial platforms. These so-called hosted payloads are additional payloads added to a commercial satellite for the purpose of being leased to a government user. They could help private firms make more money and would give the military some extra bandwidth. Boeing alone has received five hosted-payload orders in the past year and a half, said Craig Cooning, vice president and general manager of Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems, in a press release. Boeing says one of the main benefits is delivery speed — the private sector moves pretty fast, and a commercial satellite carrying a hosted payload can be ready in less than three years.

Page 21 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—NASA

Obama is Using NASA to Successfully Promote Privatized Space Now New York Times, “Obama Plan Privatizes Astronaut Launchings,” January 28th, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html)

Mr. Obama’s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget compared with projections last year. With the increase, NASA would receive $100 billion over the 2011 through 2015 fiscal years. The new money would largely go to commercial companies that would provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. Until now, NASA has designed and operated its own spacecraft, like the space shuttles. The commercial rockets would displace the Ares I, the rocket that NASA has been developing for the past four years to replace the shuttles, which are scheduled to be retired this year. Companies expected to seek the new space taxi business include United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that launches rockets for theUnited States Air Force, and Space Exploration Technologies, a start-up company led by Elon Musk, who founded PayPal. Speaking at a news conference in Israel on Wednesday, Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., the NASA administrator, gave hints of the new direction. “What NASA will focus on is facilitating the success of — I like to use the term ‘entrepreneurial interests,’ ” General Bolden said.

Page 22 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Planetary Defense

Private Control of Space is the Only Way to Get Asteroid Defense in Place Now—The Alternative to the Counterplan is Extinction Eric Tower, Author and Contributor, “Choose Life; Privatize Space,” Rational Argumentator, April 5th, 2004 (http://rationalargumentator.com/issue21/chooselife.html)

It is estimated that, once every two years, an object about this size goes undetected by astronomers and passes near the vicinity of the Moon. These events are not a frequent as terrorist bombings, but they are just as large a threat to civilization, if not greater than the terrorists themselves.

It is estimated that at the current rate of advances man will not have a working viable defense against asteroids until roughly 2025. In 2028 the asteroid XF11 will pass at about twice the distance of the moon, an extremely close pass by astronomical standards. XF11 is a mile across and is also estimated to be orbiting in a pattern that has cased scientists to label it a long-term threat. Though it is not estimated to strike the earth for another few centuries, it clearly shows yet again that the reality of asteroids striking the earth is not just a matter for good science fiction but in fact a frightening part of science reality.

It has been shown in many industries before; a privatized industry makes advances far faster and with greater efficiency than a government regulated industry. The threat poised by these objects and the begrudgingly slow pace of the government backed space industry is by far the best reason to privatize space.

What you have read above about the astronomer Chip is a short work of fiction, but the reality of this article is that the lives of our descendants and our very civilization lay in the balance with this issue. Our choices are clear, privatize space or inherit the caves.

Page 23 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—SETI

Empirically SETI Replaces Government Funding With Private Donations—There is Lots of Money Available Space.com, “With NASA Budget Cuts Looming, SETI Eyes Private Funding,” October 23rd, 2006 (http://www.space.com/3031-nasa-budget-cuts-looming-seti-eyes-private-funding.html)

With NASA expected to reduce expenditures on astrobiology by half in the year ahead, the SETI Institute--a major recipient of that funding--is seeking private money to help support the nearly 50 scientists it has on staff studying the origin, evolution and distribution of life in the universe. Officials at the Mountain View, Calif.-based nonprofit announced the fund-raising drive Oct. 17 as part of a broader effort to sustain its astrobiology endeavors over the long haul by establishing the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe to eventually establish more endowed chairs and create additional laboratory capabilities. [Full disclosure, the SETI Institute is a content partner with Space News' online sister publication,SPACE.com]. But the center's immediate goal, according to Scott Hubbard, a visiting scholar at Stanford University and the Carl Sagan chair at SETI, is raising $4 million to $6 million over the next three years to sustain its top astrobiology researchers. Hubbard, the former director of NASA Ames Research Center, said about half of the institute's $14 million annual budget comes from NASA in the form of competitively awarded, peer-reviewed research grants. NASA's astrobiology budget, the source of most of that grant money, is facing a steep decline. Under NASA's 2007 budget proposal, currently before Congress, the U.S. space agency would spend $32.5 billion on astrobiology in the year ahead--half of what it spent on astrobiology in 2005. Hubbard said in an interview that if NASA goes through with the proposed cut, SETI would expect to see its NASA grant funding reduced by about 20 percent--making it impossible to sustain without outside help the nearly 50 astrobiology researchers it has on staff. Astrobiology, a discipline NASA has been funding for about 10 years, is the hardest hit in NASA's proposal to reduce its overall scientific research and analysis spending by about 15 percent in the year ahead. NASA is under pressure from the hundreds of research scientists it funds and their allies in Congress to reverse course on the proposed reductions, and the SETI Institute is part of that fight. But Hubbard said SETI's intent in establishing the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe is to introduce a measure of long-term stability to the astrobiology community, not protest the current proposed cuts. "Cleary [SETI Chief Executive Officer] Tom Pierson and [SETI trustee] Barry Blumberg and the entire science community are working the political process to try to get the funds restored," Hubbard said. "But federal funding for anything can go up and down, so let's try to broaden our portfolio and be here for the long haul and not just wring our hands about it." SETI is no stranger to seeking private funding to sustain its activities. The institute's well-known radio searches for signals from other intelligent life in the universe has been entirely funded by about $6 million a year in private donations since Congress cut off federal funding for the efforts in 1993.

Page 24 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Shuttle Gap

Private Space Will Renew American Ability to Launch Astronuats—Solves the Shuttle Gap Fox News, “NASA Approves Partial Privatization of the Space Program,” May 11th, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519609,00.html#ixzz1NzwesGvt)

There was a catch to the Bush plan: As part of the ambitious new program, the 30-year-old space-shuttle program will end next year, saving NASA $3 billion a year to spend on new spacecraft, the first of which is scheduled to fly in late 2015. But that has created a gap in America's ability to launch astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). For at least five years, NASA will depend primarily on Russia to get Americans into space, which doesn't sit well with many space experts and politicians. As a result, NASA quickly became much friendlier to commercial ventures. In late 2005, then-agency Administrator Michael Griffin announced that NASA was considering buying crew and cargo transportation services to the ISS from private industry.

Page 25 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Space Tourism

Space Tourism Will be a Fast Growing and Large Industry—It is Obvioulsy Going to Be Lead By Private Incentives Christian Science Monitor, “Beyond NASA: The push to privatize spaceflight,” July 21st, 2005 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p14s01-stss.html)

To some analysts, tourism is the fastest way to capitalize on personal spaceflight. Rutan has licensed his technology to Sir Richard Branson, who aims to send his first tourists to briefly slap the rim of space on a craft similar to SpaceShipOne in 2008. So far, his company, Virgin Galactic, reports that nearly 100 people have made reservations for tickets selling for $200,000 each. Some studies have suggested that at the right price, the market for space tourism is large, notes Greg Autry, a spaceflight enthusiast and business school lecturer at the University of California at Irvine. But those studies may overstate the case, at least for suborbital flights. "Although this will clearly attract a lot of 'extreme' folks, they will likely be surprised by the intensity of this ride," he says. "There is virtually no time to gather your wits and stomach to enjoy the view before you go right back down." That may explain why other players in the personal-spaceflight industry are setting their sights beyond suborbital trips. Robert Bigelow, who owns Budget Suites of America, is putting his money into inflatable modules larger, lighter, hardier, and less expensive than those making up the International Space Station. Ironically, the technology was developed at NASA, then killed by Congress, at which point Mr. Bigelow bought the patent rights, notes William Schneider, a former NASA engineer who originated the concept and is now a collaborator on Bigelow's project.

Page 26 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Space Plane

Succesful Private Space Plane Development Will Snowball—We Will Have a Revolution in Space Flight Soon Aerospace Insight Blog, “The Great New Space Race,” Royal Aeronautical Society, December 17th, 2010 (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/12/great-new-space-race/)

Thus the first orbital spaceplane is likely to trigger a revolution in spaceflight comparable to the revolutions in land and air transport brought about by Stephenson’s Rocket and the Wright Flyer. As soon as the first successful orbital spaceplane enters service, it will be able to undercut any expendable launcher of comparable payload. Low costs and improved safety will increase traffic levels, which in turn will release funding to enlarge and mature the design. This will further reduce costs and increase traffic levels, thereby releasing even more funding. The result will be a virtuous downwards cost spiral until the lower limit of spaceplanes using mature developments of more or less existing technology is approached. As discussed earlier, this works out at about ten thousand pounds per seat to orbit. The total cost of a few days in a space hotel will be about twice this amount, which is affordable by middle-income people prepared to save for the holiday of a lifetime. This rapid improvement will be comparable to that of steam locomotives and aeroplanes following the pioneering work of Stephenson and the Wright Brothers. Within a few decades of these developments, land and air transport had changed beyond recognition. The big difference of course is that Stephenson and the Wright Brothers were working right at the limits of the technology of the day, whereas spaceplane development has been held up for several decades by no more than, and no less than, lack of vision and political will. Another difference is that Stephenson and the Wright Brothers had access to sufficient funds to carry out their pioneering developments whereas an orbital spaceplane is at present beyond the means of individual entrepreneurs. A third difference is that space policy has been dominated by large government agencies whereas rail transport and early aeroplane development was led mainly by the private sector. So, the private sector does not yet have the resources to develop the first orbital spaceplane and government space agencies ‘don’t want to know’. How is this deadlock going to be broken? Probably, through suborbital spaceplanes. These cost about ten times less to develop than orbital spaceplanes and several designs are being built by the private sector. Virgin Galactic plan to start suborbital passenger flights within about three years. It is only a matter of time before suborbital science and passenger space experience flights are a commercial success. This will show incontrovertibly the advantages of aeroplanes over expendable vehicles. (Present day suborbital research is carried out using expendable sounding rockets.) Suborbital spaceplanes will also pave the way technically for orbital ones.

Page 27 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Space Shuttle

The Private Commercial Crew Program is the Best way to Solve the Shuttle Gap and Keep American Leadership In Space Parabolic Arc, “Space Leaders Urge Congress to Fully Fund Commercial Crew,” March 1st, 2011 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/01/21479/)

The letters are beginning to fly again, which must mean that Congress is once again taking up the budget it failed to pass last year. In an open letter released today, more than 50 space experts and leaders from across the country urged members of Congress to fully fund NASA’s commercial crew program. By creating competition, and using fixed price contracts, NASA’s commercial crew program offers a much less expensive way of transporting NASA astronauts to the Station than any other domestic means. Funding NASA’s Commercial Crew program would lower the cost of access to low Earth orbit, thus enabling more of NASA’s budget to be applied to its focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and better enabling the kind of program laid out in NASA’s authorization bill. NASA’s competitive commercial crew program is the best way to restore US human launch capability after the Space Shuttle retires later this year, to ensure NASA’s long-term role in the International Space Station, and to open up budget resources to send crew beyond Earth orbit. Many of the signers are the usual suspects who have long supported commercial space. They also include George F. Sowers, who is vice president for business development and advanced programs at United Launch Alliance. The company is a 50-50 partnership of two very traditional aerospace giants, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. A Boeing representative also signed the letter on behalf of a company that has thrown its considerable weight behind commercial space. The striking aspect is that ULA is often derided by New Space critics as being the very epitome of “Big Rocket.” But, the fact that the company is supporting commercial space is actually a pretty big get. It gives credibility to the effort, and it isolates critics both on Capitol Hill and within the aerospace industry. Even ATK, who has fought the shift tooth and nail, has submitted a proposal for a commercial rocket. So, supporters of commercial space have won the policy argument. The question, raised in this letter, is whether they can win the funding battle as well.

Page 28 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Space Solar

Private Industry Will Solve Without Government Investment—Breakthroughs are Already in Place With Solely Private Funding Signal Magazine, “Space-Based Solar Power Comes Closer to Reality ,” December 2010 (http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=2461&print=yes_

The decades-long dream of harnessing the sun’s power in orbit as a source of clean, renewable energy on Earth may lie just over the horizon. Yet, unlike traditional space efforts, this concept may come to fruition as a result of commercial—not government—commitment. Government agencies, both in the United States and internationally, have touted the benefits of such programs. They include the U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, NASA and the European Space Agency. However, the majority of funding for these efforts is coming directly from industry. The concept behind the space-based solar power (SBSP) programs is to place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit, collect gigawatts of electrical energy and beam it to Earth. The solar energy received on the surface could be converted into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels or could be used either as base load power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. Satellites could deliver energy around the clock, virtually all year long, because the sun’s rays are up to 10 times stronger in space and there is no weather-related interference or loss of sunlight at night. In the United States, NASA, the Department of Energy and the Defense Department all have studied SBSP. NASA and the Energy Department collectively have spent $80 million over three decades in erratic efforts to study the concept. By comparison, the U.S. government has spent about $21 billion over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion. The most recent study, done in 2007 by the Defense Department’s National Security Space Office, states that preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands is a high priority. A single kilometerwide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today, according to the Defense Department study. That amount of power offers enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring and overall national security for those nations that possess an SBSP capability, the Defense Department study explains. The various government reports and recommendations have not yet led to significant action, according to industry sources. One reason policy makers elected not to pursue development is that other forms of energy were relatively less expensive; however, recent world events—including the cost of oil and the stability of oil producing nations—have changed those calculations. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency is one exception to government funding of SBSP. It has committed to developing the technology to provide electrical power from space in the 2030s. The lack of government support has not stopped companies from developing SBSP technologies. “Space solar is really a no-man’s land in that the Department of Energy is interested in generating electricity, but they don’t do anything in space. The Department of Defense doesn’t generate electricity, and NASA has no funding right now,” says Cal Boerman, vice president of sales and electricity delivery for Solaren, one of the companies investing in SBSP technology. “A lot of people out there are hoping for government funding, but we have not sought government funding, and we’re not seeking it,” he adds.

Page 29 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Space Solar

Private Enterprise Can Begin to Provide Space Solar Technology Almost Immediately Business Green, “Satellite solar panels promise grid parity power by next year,” April 30th, 2008 (http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2215513/satellite-solar-panels-promise)

Solar Concentrator Company Sunrgi is planning to undercut conventional grid electricity prices within twelve months, using the same solar technology designed for satellites. Sunrgi is planning a technology combining solar concentrators with space-class solar technology based on germanium, which it claims will produce energy costing five cents per kilowatt hour when amortised over 20 years. The company would not reveal the initial investment required in the equipment, which will be initially sold to utilities and large-scale industrial organisations. The technology, which uses lenses to focus sunlight onto solar material, has an efficiency of 37.5 per cent, the company said, compared to around 15 per cent for conventional crystalline solar panels. With sunlight generating 1MW per square metre, that means it can harvest 375 watts, said Sunrgi CEO Paul Sidlo. The company is using solar chips from Boeing Spectrolabs as the basis for the solar concentrator system. Spectrolabs has previously been credited with developing high-efficiency multi-junction solar material. The lenses used by the company will focus the power of 2,000 suns onto the solar material, said Sidlo, creating temperatures of 3,400 degrees. He added that the technology rests on two key pieces of intellectual propery. Firstly, Sunrgi uses a proprietary cooling technology to stop the intense heat from the lenses vapourising the solar material. "We have a nanomount on the back of the chip that has a tremendous ability to move thousands of thermal watts of energy away from the chip," explained Sidlo. "It uses nanotechnology that we developed." Once removed from the chip by the nanotechnology, the heat eventually reaches an aluminium heat sink that can help to move it out of the solar array. In future versions, the company is considering harvesting the waste heat and converting it back into power. The other proprietary technology is a tracking system that will minutely adjust the array's position to track the sun, increasing the energy that a unit will be able to harvest from the sun on a daily basis. The company said it hopes to begin commercial production in within 12 to 15 months.

Page 30 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Solvency—Space Tourism

Private Space Tourism is Key to Kick-Start the Industry Agence France Press, “Top US astronaut welcomes space tourism,” July 29th, 2008 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080729130802.k6vqx7sf&show_article=1)

"In the early part of the 20th century when airplanes first started to fly, there were initially some advancements but only when companies started doing it to make a profit did it really take off," Kelly said. US and Japanese space agencies will "likely stay on the forefront of space exploration," he said. "But the other stuff like flying in Earth's orbit is going to take off with space tourism." Virgin Galactic is hoping to send its first paying customers 110 kilometres (70 miles) above the Earth in 2010. The company has said more that more than 200 passengers have already signed up for the first flights, which will cost 200,000 dollars each. "I think the company is going to be successful. I'm pretty excited about it," Discovery commander Kelly said. But he said there "is certainly going to be a lot of risk involved for those passengers," in part because the missions would have less heating than US shuttles. Kelly said that for now space flights would likely be limited to short travel involving shooting up and shooting back down to Earth.

Page 31 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Spending—Doesn’t Link to Spending

Private Spending is Uniquely Different From Government Funding—Private Industry Produces Economic Benefits the Government Can’t Capture Jonathan M. Finegold Catalán, Economic Author and Blogger, “Government Spending Is Bad Economics,” Ludwig von Mises Institute, March 31st, 2011 (http://mises.org/daily/5123/Government-Spending-Is-Bad-Economics)

Commonly, critics of government spending argue that at best this type of spending only replaces the spending that would have otherwise occurred in the private sector — it is like taking money out of your right pocket and putting it in your left. At worst, it is said, government spending brings about the negative side effect of discouraging production through taxation (or the threat of taxation in the case of debt-financed spending, assuming that the concept of Ricardian equivalence holds some merit). These are accurate and powerful critiques of government spending, but they ultimately fall short of explaining the fundamental problem. Government spending is inherently inferior to private spending and does not operate within the coordinating forces of the market.

Page 32 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Politics—Incentives/Prizes Unpopular

Government Incentives and Prizes are Politically Contentious The Space Review, “Will government-sponsored space prizes fly?” November 15th, 2004 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/270/1)

The bill has virtually no chance of passing in this Congress because the House and Senate will convene this week for only a brief “lame duck” session before final adjournment. However, does legislation like Space and Aeronautics Prize Act have a chance of surviving both houses of Congress and becoming law in the near future? Unlike the privately funded X Prize, the Space and Aeronautics Prize relies primarily on taxpayer dollars for funding. Even NASA’s Centennial Challenges prize program, while technically “government-sponsored,” derives its funding from the existing NASA budget. Some types of prizes, like the Space Settlement Initiative proposed by Alan Wasser, would cost the taxpayer nothing because incentives readily available in space (such as land claim recognition on the Moon) act as the financial lure for private space development efforts. Since a government-sponsored cash prize must tap the public coffer one way or another, though, monetary prizes are a much more difficult sell in Congress. Efforts to pass government-sponsored monetary incentives for private space development have an abysmal track record in Congress. During the 1990’s, for example, a series of bills were introduced by Congressman Bob Walker (then chairman of the House Science Committee) designed to provide very substantial tax breaks for private sector “space corporations” as well as for investors who purchased stock in such companies.

Page 33 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Politics—Privatize Unpopular

Privatizing Space is Unpopular With Significant Entrenched Interests Huffington Post, “NASA To Outsource Space Travel To Private Companies As Part Of Obama's Budget Proposal,” January 31st, 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/nasa-to-outsource-space-t_n_443549.htmlO

The Federal Aviation Administration, which has a commercial space division, would regulate private space safety and other issues. Pace cautioned that Clinton era efforts to privatize parts of the National Reconnaissance Organization, which builds and operates U.S. spy satellites, as a failure and this could be similar. He added that there's such strong support in Congress for the current space program a change may be difficult to get through Capitol Hill. New York University government professor Paul Light said: "My general caution is be careful about what you give away. It's awful expensive to get it back."

Page 34 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: No Laws/Definitions/Framework for Private Space

Contemporary Policy Changes Put the Framework in Place—The Definitions and Legal Structures are Ready to Go The Space Review, “A change in tone in national space policy,” July 6th, 2010 (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1660/1)

The Bush Administration policy did not have an explicit definition of commercial space in its policy. The Clinton policy, though, did: “A space good or service is ‘commercially available’ if it is currently offered commercially, or if it could be supplied commercially in response to a government service procurement request.” The new definition is also different from what the George H.W. Bush Administration considered commercial in its guidelines for commercial space activities laid out in NSPD-3, a document separate from its overall national space policy (see “Twin hurdles for commercial human spaceflight”, The Space Review, May 24, 2010.) The biggest difference is that the new policy allows, at least implicitly, for some degree of government investment in commercial space ventures through the “reasonable portion of the investment risk” clause. By comparison, the Clinton policy prohibits “the use of direct Federal subsidies”. The new policy is, at least, in line with current efforts like NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, where NASA is helping fund the development of new launch vehicles and spacecraft to transport cargo to the ISS, systems that would also be available to commercial and other non-NASA customers. “One of the troubles that people are having with commercial space policy is the wording, and what it commercial. Everybody keeps searching for what commercial means,” Smith said. “I think the Obama policy lays out at least what the White House thinks commercial space is, and the appropriate role of the government in facilitating the emergence of commercial space. You can agree or disagree with it, but at least it’s there.”

Page 35 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: Legal Restrictions Prevent the CP

The Government is Already Looking to Encourage Private Development and Exploration of Space—Prizes, Insurance and Eases of Legal Restrictions Now Christian Science Monitor, “Beyond NASA: The push to privatize spaceflight,” July 21st, 2005 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p14s01-stss.html)

In May, for example, the Federal Aviation Administration published guidelines for granting permits to companies wanting to test reusable suborbital rockets. The move follows the FAA's February publication of draft guidelines governing crews and passengers in private spacecraft. The FAA's authority to regulate the industry - first via guidelines, later with binding regulations - came through the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, which was signed into law in December. The measure represents a significant step forward, says Carole Flores, manager of the licensing and safety division in the FAA's office of the associate administrator for commercial space transportation. It allows for government oversight without forcing the companies involved to first endure a drawn-out process of crafting formal regulations. Ms. Flores says her division had been anticipating some form of involvement in the human-spaceflight business since Dennis Tito bought a trip aboard a Russian rocket and became the first space tourist to visit the International Space Station in 2001. Studies indicated tourism would be the prime market initially for space travel outside government exploration efforts. But "we had a hard time convincing some people that this was real," she says. Then last fall, Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne became the first private manned craft to reach space. That put space tourism "right up in front of people," Flores says. In February, a dozen players formed the Personal Spaceflight Federation, which aims to set industry standards and help shape federal policies on privatized spaceflight. Among the founders was Peter Diamandis, whose X Prize Foundation amassed the $10 million purse that prompted the privatized space race that Mr. Rutan won.

Page 36 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: Government Key to Safety

The Complications of a Government Space Program Encourage Shotty Work—Results in Catastrophes Like Columbia Robert Garmong, Ph.D, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “Privatize Space Exploration,” Intellectual Conservative, July 22nd, 2005 (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/07/22/privatize-space-exploration/)

There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.

Page 37 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: Permutation

Developers in the Space Industry are Driven By Governmental Failure in the Arena—Plan and the CP Trade Off CNET, “Private industry moves to take over space race,” October 1st, 2007 (http://news.cnet.com/Private-industry- moves-to-take-over-space-race/2009-11397_3-6210833.html#ixzz1O08dfHp2)

Allen, Rutan, Musk, Bezos and Carmack are paving the way for private industry in space from the deep pockets of their own industrial efforts. Made wealthy by taking chances in fields like software, computers, aviation and the Internet, they're taking the risk in space that was once the sole domain of governments. If you ask any of them what drove them into this field, they will most likely tell you it was a boyhood desire to be an astronaut. That, and frustration with government efforts in space today. Diamandis added: "In the last 40 years, we've never fulfilled the promise that we had seen in Apollo. So, now people are saying, 'I'm going to give up on the government, I'm going to do it myself.'"

Page 38 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: NASA Key to Future Development

Giving Specific Space Missions Over to Private Industry Frees NASA Up to Focus on Development and Next wave Projects Huffington Post, “NASA To Outsource Space Travel To Private Companies As Part Of Obama's Budget Proposal,” January 31st, 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/nasa-to-outsource-space-t_n_443549.htmlO

WASHINGTON — Getting to space is about to be outsourced. The Obama administration on Monday will propose in its new budget spending billions of dollars to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate spacecraft for NASA and others. Uncle Sam would buy its astronauts a ride into space just like hopping in a taxi. The idea is that getting astronauts into orbit, which NASA has been doing for 49 years, is getting to be so old hat that someone other than the government can do it. It's no longer really the Right Stuff. Going private would free the space agency to do other things, such as explore beyond Earth's orbit, do more research and study the Earth with better satellites. And it would spur a new generation of private companies – even some with Internet roots – to innovate.

Page 39 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: Private Space Can’t Get Started

Government Support of a Privatized Space Industry Ensures its Early Success—Empirical Example of the Airline Industry Huffington Post, “NASA To Outsource Space Travel To Private Companies As Part Of Obama's Budget Proposal,” January 31st, 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/nasa-to-outsource-space-t_n_443549.htmlO

Proponents of private space, an idea that has been kicking around for nearly 20 years, point to the airline industry in its infancy. Initially the Army flew most planes. But private companies eventually started building and operating aircraft, especially when they got a guaranteed customer in the U.S. government to deliver air mail. That's what NASA would be: a guaranteed customer to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station through 2020. It would be similar to the few years that NASA paid Russia to fly astronauts on its Soyuz after the Columbia accident in 2003. "With a $6 billion program you can have multiple winners. You'll literally have your Blackberry, your iPhone and your Android phone all competing for customers in the marketplace," said John Gedmark, executive director of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. The White House has said it will be adding $5.9 billion to the overall NASA budget over five years; Gedmark believes most or all will go to commercial space. Mike Gold, corporate counsel at Bigelow Aerospace, which is building the first commercial space station and is a potential spacecraft provider, believes the government should have privatized astronaut launchings decades ago. "It will force the aerospace world to become competitive again and restore us to our glory days," Gold said.

Page 40 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

AT: Prizes Don’t Matter

Prizes Encourage Private Development—They Attract Large Investment and Interest Christian Science Monitor, “Beyond NASA: The push to privatize spaceflight,” July 21st, 2005 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p14s01-stss.html)

Following the X Prize model, in May Mr. Sponberg's NASA division unveiled a $250,000 prize for the first team to devise a practical way of converting lunar soil compounds into breathable oxygen. The award carries a June 1, 2008, deadline. Earlier this year, the office announced four $100,000 prizes for advances in beam-power and space-tether technologies. He says money has been earmarked in the proposal for next year's budget to begin building toward the biggest prizes. These prizes aim to encourage large private efforts that might include robotic missions to the moon.

Page 41 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Government Better

Moving Away From NASA Gives Up Expertise and Experience For the Sake of Corporatism— Private Space is Far Less Qualified Matt Browner Hamlin, Author and Campaigner, “Privatizing Space Flight,” January 29th, 2010 (http://holdfastblog.com/2010/01/29/privatizing-space-flight/)

Ending NASA’s control of manned American space flight and moving these responsibilities to private contractors sounds like as bad idea as is possible in the early twenty-first century. NASA has been successfully putting Americans into space for research and exploration for over half a century. Why would companies who are just beginning to experiment with manned orbital flight do a better job than the scientists, researchers, and engineers who’ve put men on the moon? Speaking at a news conference in Israel on Wednesday, Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., the NASA administrator, gave hints of the new direction. “What NASA will focus on is facilitating the success of — I like to use the term ‘entrepreneurial interests,’ ” General Bolden said. Turning NASA into a pass-through organization responsible for cutting checks to Boeing & LockheedMartin is an embarrassing idea, better suited for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney than the Obama administration. This is the worst kind of American corporatism.

Page 42 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—NASA Good

NASA Key to Prevent Human Extinction Joseph N. Pelton, Research Professor with the Institute for Applied Space Research at the George Washington University. “COMMENTARY: Why Space? The Top 10 Reasons,” Space.com, September 12th, 2003 (www.space.com/newscommentary_top10_030912.html)

NASA as well as national space programs around the world are today isolated from the man-in-the-street. This gap needs serious and urgent attention by Congress, the president and the leadership of NASA. Actually the lack of a space program could get us all killed. I dont mean you or me or my wife or children. I mean that Homo sapiens as a species are actually endangered. Surprising to some, a well conceived space program may well be our only hope for long-term survival. The right or wrong decisions about space research and exploration may be key to the futures of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren or those that follow. Arthur C. Clarke, the author and screenplay writer for 2001: A Space Odyssey, put the issue rather starkly some years back when he said: The dinosaurs are not around today because they did not have a space program. He was, of course, referring to the fact that we now know a quite largish meteor crashed into the earth, released poisonous Iridium chemicals into our atmosphere and created a killer cloud above the Earth that blocked out the sun for a prolonged period of time. This could have been foreseen and averted with a sufficiently advanced space program. But this is only one example of how space programs, such as NASAs Spaceguard program, help protect our fragile planet. Without a space program we would not know about the large ozone hole in our atmosphere, the hazards of solar radiation, the path of killer hurricanes or many other environmental dangers. But this is only a fraction of the ways that space programs are crucial to our future.

Page 43 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Conspiracy Theory Links

The Privatization of Space is a Plan to Privilege Societal Elites and The Illuminati The Spiritual Path, “NASA:Space Program Over or Just Privatized? Large Rocket Launch,” April 12th, 2011 (http://reddawnpost.com/?p=261)

The Associated Press reported last Thursday April 7, 2011 that the founder of PayPal (an online payment service) and the company he is now president of is planning to launch the biggest rocket since the man on the moon. The company “Space Exploration Technology” or “Space X” (very interesting abbreviation, if you study Ancient Religions and Secret Societies) has already launched a private rocket and test capsule successfully into orbit. Which is interesting because the facilities used for launching future rockets will be NASA facilities. California and Cape Canaveral Florida. The target date for the first launch will be sometime during 2013 and will be from California. Which is also very interesting, considering the strange launch trail seen off the coast of California a few months ago. Could the private rocket and test rocket and capsule been the culprit of the mysterious trail that the government denied involvement in? Yep, and the reason they could deny “involvement” is because it was a “private” launch If “Space X” is using NASA facilities you can bet your life they have a hand in every mission. They are “potential” customers as well. Was all the controversy over ending the Space Program really just a smoke screen to cover up the fact that they were taking it private? Why? Because now they will not have to share as much information about these missions and can further the Royals agenda through technology. Then if they are really good and part of the Bloodline, they can walk down the “Red” (Blood) carpet and get a metal pinned on their chest by the Queen. I have not researched the lineage of the individual that founded Paypal and is President of Space X Elon Musk, but I can assure you if he isn’t tied to Royalty in some way shape or form, he is definitely a high degree Free Mason or in some kind of Secret Brotherhood, Club of Rome etc. This is high level stuff and this privatization of the Space Program designed to keep us in the dark as to what they are doing. People have started to wake up to the age old secrets that have been being kept from us in many fields and this is their way of defending against the cover ups of NASA in the past. Now they don’t have to cover them up. THERE PRIVATE! They know people are starting to seek knowledge and have become interested as to the goings on of the wealthy of the world who’s control are behind the curtain. Where’s Toto when you need him? Or her? They understand astrologically this is the time of awakening and they need to crawl deeper into the cave to stay out of the light that’s about to come and shine on all the dirt that’s been accumulating in their very souls. The veil is going to come down. It’s Not Just a Rocket This is the biggest Rocket launched since we “put a man on the moon” (If we did indeed put a man on the moon).

The rocket is called Falcon Heavy and can take more than double the pay load into orbit that the Space Shuttle could. Yet not as much as the Saturn V could haul. Initially the rocket was to be used for just cargo, but I guess since NASA made the decision to go private Space X as accommodated them and after a few launches will be able to carry humans. Potential customers? They will be customers and will be sent up in a smaller rocket called the Falcon 9 with Dragon capsule. Interesting the use of Dragon and Falcon in these names. These archetypes have history. Rich history. Occult history. Potential customers for the new larger rocket are NASA, the military, other governments and satellite makers. Well, so it’s NASA as usual just flying under a different name. Which is a private company. All I know is something stinks to high heaven about this situation, especially after such a big deal was made about ending the Space Program. Then turn around and make it a private endeavor deceitfully leading people to believe that there is no longer a Space Program, when there is. Lockheed Martin Corp also seems to have a hand in this as well. We must arm ourselves with knowledge and be done with these lying

Page 44 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Privatizationà Militarization

Private Control of Space Will Necessitate Rapid and Significant Militarization as Protection for Space Assets Bruce Gagnon, Author and Activist, “SPACE PRIVATIZATION: ROAD TO CONFLICT?” Space4Peace.org, June 21st, 2003 (http://www.space4peace.org/articles/road_to_conflict.htm)

So let's just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars. Who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police?

In the Congressional study published in 1989 called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years we get some inkling of the answer. The forward of the book was signed by many politicians like former Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). The author reported to Congress on the importance of military bases on the moon and suggested that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the "gravity well", between the Earth and the moon. The author reported to Congress that "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return."

Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone" where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth. After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the "new world," Queen Isabella began the 100 year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new "interests and investments" around the world. This helped create the global war system.

Page 45 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Private Spaceà Accidents

Private Space Travel Increases the Risk of Dangerous Accidents Space.com, “Going Private: The Promise and Danger of Space Travel,” September 30th, 2004 (http://www.space.com/386-private-promise-danger-space-travel.html)

Yesterday pilot Mike Melvill -- the first civilian astronaut -- again flew the privately built SpaceShipOne to suborbital height in a very public launch that drew crowds of people and was broadcast live on the Internet. The flight was the first of two planned launch attempts to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize, a competition designed to spur construction of reusable manned spacecraft. While successful, the flight had its share of danger, when SpaceShipOne went into an unexpected roll near the top of its trajectory, spinning some 20 times. The incident, combined with a control issue during a previous SpaceShipOne flight, highlights the risk inherent in space travel. That risk, present during the entire Space Age, could grow as the industry is privatized. "Private individuals are willing to take risks that government [agencies] can't take," explained Howard McCurdy, a space historian and professor of public affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. "I think [the X Prize] clearly has a Lindburgh effect that is drawing attention to the field." The big unknown in all this may be the extent to which people really want pay for joy rides off the planet. It appears there will soon be no shortage of tickets to buy.

Page 46 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Permutation

Private Industrial Booms Correlate With Governmental Impetus Towards Space—The Plan WillI Independently Spur the Counterplan CNET, “Private industry moves to take over space race,” October 1st, 2007 (http://news.cnet.com/Private-industry- moves-to-take-over-space-race/2009-11397_3-6210833.html#ixzz1O08dfHp2)

"As it turns 50, there's a third era about to begin, one that recaptures the excitement of pioneering human voices that was characterized by the early years," said David Thompson, CEO of Orbital Sciences, which developed the first private launch vehicle, Pegasus. Activities in the private industry come at a time when governments are stepping up their efforts in space, too. President George Bush has set NASA on a mission to put men back on the moon by 2020, and then onto Mars between 2035 and 2037. Among other international efforts, Russian plans to build a new manned space transport system by 2015 and China plans to send another rover to the moon in 2012, to survey every inch of lunar surface. "The next 50 years are going to be historic. There's intensifying economic and space competition," said Joanne Maguire, head of space systems for Lockheed Martin.

Page 47 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Privatization Fails

All Evidence Suggests Private Industry Is Not Up to the Job of Running the Space Program— Empirically these Projects Have Failed and Cost Billions Wall Street Journal, “Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?,” February 13th, 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059263418508030.html)

The private sector simply is not up for the job. For one, NASA will have to establish a system to certify commercial orbital vehicles as safe for human transport, and with government bureaucracy, that will take years. Never mind the challenges of obtaining insurance. Entrepreneurial companies have consistently overpromised and under-delivered. Over the past 30 years, over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the launch business. The only one to make the transition into a respectably sized space company is Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va. Building vehicles capable of going into orbit is not for the fainthearted or the undercapitalized. The companies that have survived have done so mostly by relying on U.S. government Small Business Innovation Research contracts, one or more angel investors, or both. Big aerospace firms tempted to join NASA's new projects will remember the public-private partnership fiasco when Lockheed Martin's X-33 design was chosen to replace the space shuttle in 1996. Before it was canceled in 2001 this program cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. Of the smaller failures, there was Rotary Rocket in California, which promised to revolutionize space travel with a combination helicopter and rocket and closed down in 2001. In 1997, Texas banker Andrew Beal announced that his firm, Beal Aerospace, was going to build a new large rocket. He shut it down in 2000. In the 1990s, Kistler Aerospace designed a reusable launcher using reconditioned Russian engines. In 2006, reorganized as Rocketplane Kistler, it won a share in a NASA program designed to deliver cargo to the International Space Station. When the company did not meet a financial milestone the following year, NASA withdrew financing. Blue Origin, a secretive spacecraft development firm owned by Amazon.com Chief Executive Jeff Bezos, is interesting because it uses concepts and technology for reusable vehicles originally developed by the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative Organization. In the early 1990s, the organization set up the DC-X program, and its suborbital test vehicle flew 12 times before it was destroyed in a landing accident. The Clinton administration saw the DC-X as a Reagan/Bush legacy program, and was happy to cancel it after the accident. The sad lesson of the DC-X is that some politicians won't keep their predecessors' programs going, no matter how promising. To turn the DC-X into a space launch vehicle would have taken at least a couple of decades and a few billion in investments. Yet the total cost might not have been much more than the amount the government has spent on other failed launch vehicle development programs over the past 20 years.

Page 48 of 49

VBI Private CP 2k11

Aff—Privatization Kills Heg

Private Leadership on Space Gives Up Our International Prominence Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Columnist, “Closing the new frontier,” February 12th, 2010 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103484.html)

Of course, the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA's efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars. This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It's too expensive. It's too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high. Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative "clean energy." Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration. As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can't afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles? To say nothing of the effects of long-term weightlessness, of long-term cosmic ray exposure, and of the intolerable risk to astronaut safety involved in any Mars trip -- six months of contingencies vs. three days for a moon trip. Of course, the whole Mars project as substitute for the moon is simply a ruse. It's like the classic bait-and-switch for high-tech military spending: Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated alternative, which either never gets developed or is simply killed later in the name of yet another, even more sophisticated alternative of the further future. A classic example is the B-1 bomber, which was canceled in the 1970s in favor of the over-the-horizon B-2 stealth bomber, which was then killed in the 1990s after a production run of only 21 (instead of 132) in the name of post-Cold War obsolescence.

Page 49 of 49